It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
arrow-down2arrowcart2close4fat-arrow-leftfat-arrow-rightfeedbackfriends2happy-facelogo-gognotificationnotifications-emptyownedremove-menusad-facesearch2wishlist-menuwishlisted2own_thingsheartstartick
avatar
jdsgn: I agree. It's desirable to have a low armor class, that's kinda hard to swallow. The rule system is not bad, but in some points more difficultthan necessary.
I think I can write a book (ok, I am exaggerating) about all the things D&D do wrong. In the 2nd edition the main points were:

-far too many characteristics values were useless; (by memory) the most extreme was Constitution with no difference between 7 to 15. For all characteristics the advantages become exponential toward the end. Of course there were some random extra rules.. you wanted to be a fighter? Throw until you get at least 18/90.
-incredibly counter intuitive multi-class system. Depending on the race you can mix classes in a different way; humans in particular with a rule (that made no sense) only for them. Incredible small print, multi class character take limits on the weapons for all classes, but advantages for armors. In fact a Druid/Fighter could use a metal armor, but no metallic weapons (a part of the scimitar, just to have an extra exception).
-depending on the context you needed big or small dice rolls.
-as all the D&D (at least 1st to 3th) a part of the very first levels caster are totally better than all classes as spells replace all abilities and Druids rule. In the game also Monks were quite powerful though, but they were not in the original pen and paper game.
avatar
jdsgn: I agree. It's desirable to have a low armor class, that's kinda hard to swallow. The rule system is not bad, but in some points more difficultthan necessary.
avatar
etb: I think I can write a book (ok, I am exaggerating) about all the things D&D do wrong. In the 2nd edition the main points were:

-far too many characteristics values were useless; (by memory) the most extreme was Constitution with no difference between 7 to 15. For all characteristics the advantages become exponential toward the end. Of course there were some random extra rules.. you wanted to be a fighter? Throw until you get at least 18/90.
-incredibly counter intuitive multi-class system. Depending on the race you can mix classes in a different way; humans in particular with a rule (that made no sense) only for them. Incredible small print, multi class character take limits on the weapons for all classes, but advantages for armors. In fact a Druid/Fighter could use a metal armor, but no metallic weapons (a part of the scimitar, just to have an extra exception).
-depending on the context you needed big or small dice rolls.
-as all the D&D (at least 1st to 3th) a part of the very first levels caster are totally better than all classes as spells replace all abilities and Druids rule. In the game also Monks were quite powerful though, but they were not in the original pen and paper game.
Das Schwarze Auge / The Dark Eye
it is for you too then.
In my opinion Mass Effect has an interesting story but the rest is just a bad shooter and a mediocre rpg.
avatar
Klumpen0815: Das Schwarze Auge / The Dark Eye
it is for you too then.
Unfortunately life went on and I almost do not play anymore :|, but I am more in ultra-minimalist set of rules like or [url=http://livingfree.wikidot.com/altars-archetypes]Altar and Archetypes.
avatar
cecil: Brutal Legends, Overlord or any action game that is also an RTS in third person. It's decent action hack and slash marred by imprecise camera controls which makes moving your units for the RTS elements harder then need be.
I agree when it comes to Brutal Legend, the RTS system in that game was unnecessary and not implemented smoothly enough. I always forgot the RTS controls because these events were too infrequent, I also forgot 'which unit did what', so I had to re-learn everything in every battle, which made things harder than they should have been.
Its the one single reason I don't want to replay the game even though I really liked everything else.
avatar
cecil: Gone Home. I'd say more but in the interest of not ruining the plot I will just say too little interaction and connection to the family for me to feel invested.
It was creepy at first, but in the end I felt let down by the plot. Probably because, like you imply, you are more or less just an intruder going though a stranger's house. Also, there was no reason for me to replay the experience. I thought Dear Esther did it better; you got a Lovecraftian or Gothic open-world to explore with a rather cryptic plot. I have replayed the experience twice now, in large part because of the atmosphere but also because of the explorative aspect.
avatar
Stevedog13: Diablo - A 2.5D isometric roguelike inspired game with real graphics! Awesome! My favorite genre is getting a face lift and joining the modern (well modern at that time) world. Nope. Just another mindless hack n' slash style button masher with some random elements thrown in. And thanks to the mouse driven "click on something to kill it" control scheme I didn't even have the option to plug in a gamepad and pretend it was Golden Axe or Gauntlet. I've been told that there are several different quests which are randomly assigned each play through, but I'll never know. I forced myself to finish the game then uninstalled it and gave the disc away. And again I realize that I'm in the minority on this one.
I'd argue you made a point on why all 3 Diablo are so disappointing. You now can have a controller and wish you were playing golden axe instead and they even tried to up the action in the console releases of Diablo 3.
Open world games.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the freedom they allow the player. However, the more I play them the more I see how little thought actually goes into making them... or more importantly, WHY they're created in the first place. With the release of GTA or fantasy RPGs back in the day, it was like every single dev out there said, 'hey, let's put an open world in our game too!' without thinking of the limitations, the costs, and the sheer dev time needed to build the game world.

So in GTA, Sleeping Dogs, Saint's Row, Uncharted, Elder Scrolls, etc, they all feature a somewhat confined but free roaming world to play around in. But to do what? Watch cock fights, play darts, get drunk and buy armor/clothes. Is that the limit of human imagination? In GTA you can buy businesses, but in none of the games can you actually run or control them. They're simple placeholders to increase player income. For all the promises of open world games, they're usually pretty static and limited in their potential.

Not saying that I prefer controlled corridor games that push you from point A to point B, but at least there's more room in those games for satisfying stories and accomplishment. Sometimes you just feel like an idiot driving for miles in GTA just to go buy a new polo shirt at the local shop... or traveling for miles on foot in some medieval RPG game just to uncover a cheap potion. The 'how's' of game design have been solved long ago. The 'why's' are still up in the air.
avatar
vp9156: Skyrim.
When it was announced, I was soooo excited. Not only a new ES game, but it had dragons to fight! It was the most anticipated game in my life. And then it came out and became the biggest disappointment of my gaming life. I'm not even talking about the bugs - such a big game, I expected them. But the UI was horrible for a computer user. Maybe the worst UI I've seen in a computer game. Also, the dragon shouts were not balanced very well. And the quality of the quests were a huge step down from Oblivion. A few were interesting and fun, but overall they were pretty meh.

The game isn't bad, I still played it for a while. And now that mods are out to improve the experience (and hopefully fix the UI) I plan to play again, but it will make me sad thinking of how awesome it could have been.
The technical problems is what did it for me. After one of the patches the game crashed everytime I entered water, which was ironic since I was playing an Argonian. And I couldn't even finish the last mission, and thus the game, because of a bug. 100 + hours invested and I can't even complete the thing.

To me it is absolutely bonkers that this game got such high reviews and praise, all it takes to impress people is pretty graphics and an open-world. Bethesda seems to be the darling of everyone in the gaming media, probably because their games capture such a large viewer count. Its unethical and unscrupulous nonetheless. Games should be judged with an equal level of scrutiny.
avatar
Emob78: Open world games.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the freedom they allow the player. However, the more I play them the more I see how little thought actually goes into making them... or more importantly, WHY they're created in the first place...In GTA you can buy businesses, but in none of the games can you actually run or control them. They're simple placeholders to increase player income. For all the promises of open world games, they're usually pretty static and limited in their potential.
I'm split on this. In games like GTA 5 and Sleeping Dogs I've always enjoyed just driving around in the open world doing nothing in particular. On the other hand I definitely agree that more interactive gameplay elements, like micro-managing you businesses, would elevate the experience considerably. It doesn't have to be overly complicated either, just look at Omerta or some of the later Assassin's Creed games.
avatar
comradegarry: Bioshock
I love the setting and story but I couldn't stand the game play; it just didn't feel right being a horror fps game where your shooting pretty much everything that moved. I wanted to explore rapture more! :(
Funny, for me it was the exact opposite; I liked the gameplay, but did not like the rest.
avatar
anomaly: Hydrophobia: Prophecy should be here.

The game was definitely unfinished, as anyone who has played it will tell you. I enjoyed it, but it was frustrating seeing the very rough edges, poor level design and a story that was poorly thought out. It was about 2/3 of a game, which was a pity because I'd love to see a rebuild or a better sequel. Unlikely to happen in its current state though.
Agree. I liked the game because the concept and experience was very unique. However the technical issues made it unnecessarily frustrating at times. I still recommend it to people though, because of its uniqueness.
Post edited December 30, 2014 by R8V9F5A2
avatar
Emob78: Open world games.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the freedom they allow the player. However, the more I play them the more I see how little thought actually goes into making them... or more importantly, WHY they're created in the first place...In GTA you can buy businesses, but in none of the games can you actually run or control them. They're simple placeholders to increase player income. For all the promises of open world games, they're usually pretty static and limited in their potential.
avatar
R8V9F5A2: I'm split on this. In games like GTA 5 and Sleeping Dogs I've always enjoyed just driving around in the open world doing nothing in particular. On the other hand I definitely agree that more interactive gameplay elements, like micro-managing you businesses, would elevate the experience considerably. It doesn't have to be overly complicated either, just look at Omerta or some of the later Assassin's Creed games.
I think, Deadly Premonition showed a way to handle open world. Free roaming, sidequesting, silly minigames - but everything is overshadowd by a relevant plot, that drives the story foreward and keeps you emotionally attached. Gothic did it similar, back in the days. I really hope this is the way, they go with Witcher 3.
avatar
jdsgn: I agree. It's desirable to have a low armor class, that's kinda hard to swallow. The rule system is not bad, but in some points more difficultthan necessary.
avatar
etb: I think I can write a book (ok, I am exaggerating) about all the things D&D do wrong. In the 2nd edition the main points were:

-far too many characteristics values were useless; (by memory) the most extreme was Constitution with no difference between 7 to 15. For all characteristics the advantages become exponential toward the end. Of course there were some random extra rules.. you wanted to be a fighter? Throw until you get at least 18/90.
-incredibly counter intuitive multi-class system. Depending on the race you can mix classes in a different way; humans in particular with a rule (that made no sense) only for them. Incredible small print, multi class character take limits on the weapons for all classes, but advantages for armors. In fact a Druid/Fighter could use a metal armor, but no metallic weapons (a part of the scimitar, just to have an extra exception).
-depending on the context you needed big or small dice rolls.
-as all the D&D (at least 1st to 3th) a part of the very first levels caster are totally better than all classes as spells replace all abilities and Druids rule. In the game also Monks were quite powerful though, but they were not in the original pen and paper game.
I see, you've dived way deeper into the rule set than I have^^

Constitution beyond 7 is useless??? That renders 3 of my Icewind Dale character builds useless. And what do these 18/?? mean?
avatar
anomaly: Hydrophobia: Prophecy should be here.

The game was definitely unfinished, as anyone who has played it will tell you. I enjoyed it, but it was frustrating seeing the very rough edges, poor level design and a story that was poorly thought out. It was about 2/3 of a game, which was a pity because I'd love to see a rebuild or a better sequel. Unlikely to happen in its current state though.
I'll agree with this. I had high hopes going into it but got extremely little enjoyment out of it (and yet I played to the final boss battle). It seemed like it was built just to show off its water engine (which was fairly impressive to be fair) with little thought going into anything else. To me it would've been better as a "manipulate the water to escape a giant sinking ship" instead of the awkward Tomb Raider-ish game that it became. It would've shown off the engine better too, in my opinion. Still like you I'd love to see a sequel or even a remake.
I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this, but I'm feeling brave.

I wanted to like Neverwinter Nights 2. I really did. Aside from the updated graphics, everything NWN2 did , I felt NWN1 did better. I found that the editor was more entertaining than the initial game.
avatar
jdsgn: I see, you've dived way deeper into the rule set than I have ^^

Constitution beyond 7 is useless??? That renders 3 of my Icewind Dale character builds useless. And what do these 18/?? mean?
My bad, what I meant is that all the values between 7 to 14 (not 15 probably) have the same (lack of) effect. So it means that a character with 7 or 14 of constitution is pretty much the same. Of course in Ice Wind Dale it means: Constitution must be 16 for all characters (+2 PF/level), 18 for Fighters (+4 PF/level). Once again, a special rule for someone...

Seriously, in this games I use editors to fix the values to make them meaningful.


Fighters classes have a special second value for Strength if they have 18: a number between 1 to 100, and the bonus tyouhey have with 91-99 or 100 is so powerful that makes any other possibility pretty much a bad idea. It is written like 18/91 or 19/00.
Post edited December 30, 2014 by etb